Progressives Don’t Let Friends Vote Neocon

The drumbeat is quickening as Hillary’s surrogates insist that Bernie’s supporters fall in line. Bernie’s chances are said to be hopeless. Continuing to run only plays into the hands of truly despicable Republicans.

And forget about trying to pressure the Democratic Party’s establishment to let Bernie play a role in formulating the convention’s platform. That also would just play into the hands of the Republicans.

Time to unite behind Hillary, and let her move further to the right. No more talk of revolution, of trillions of dollars of new spending, of significant increases to the minimum wage. Let’s talk about Hillary’s issues: regime change abroad, downsizing dreams at home, and protecting Wall Street from the pitchforks.

Some Hillary surrogates are even talking about retribution for Bernie supporters. I saw the following blog by a supporter:

After yesterday the word–and the obvious thing–is to stand down. Mind you: The day will come when it will be time to gleefully and comprehensively trash people to be named later for Guevarista fantasies about what their policies are likely to do. The day will come when it will be time to gleefully and comprehensively trash people to be named later for advocating Cominternscale lying to voters about what our policies are like to do. And it will be important to do so then because overpromising leads to bad policy decisions, and overpromising is bad long-run politics as well. But that day is not now. That day will be mid-November.

Those who “fantasized” about Bernie’s “overpromising”, his “lying to voters”, are going to get trashed come November. As one who argued that Bernie was not “overpromising” I suppose I might be among the “named” in November. Great, I look forward to that!

It does give one pause, however. Are Hillary’s supporters fantasizing about bringing back the good old McCarthy era? When an accusation that one is too socialist—too close to revolutionaries like Che, or Castro, let alone a Lenin—could end one’s career? Hillary’s campaign has already hired trolls to attack blogging critics (I think I’ve met a few at NEP!). Old Senator McCarthy must be envious. Too bad he didn’t have the internet.

But is this supposed to bring Bernie’s supporters over to the Hillary camp? Remember, voters came out by the millions to vote for a candidate who proudly claimed to be a democratic socialist, and his voters proudly cheered every time he said it. Not only that, they gave their hard-earned savings to him so that he could run.

By contrast, the establishment candidates relied on Wall Street funding, donations by fat cats with much to gain by retaining control over Washington. And even with all the support that the establishment could muster, Bernie is still in the race—much to Hillary’s consternation. I think the McCarthy-ite scare tactics will fail this time.

While Hillary is slightly ahead in the votes, she’s viewed with far more suspicion by Americans. To put it as plainly as possible, they do not like her, and the more they learn, the less they like her. The more they learn about her surrogates, the less they’ll like them, and her.

Yes, she’s way ahead in the delegates. She was awarded a quarter of all the delegates before the campaign even started. All she needed was to get one more quarter, plus one, of the remainder in order to “win”. She only needed to earn 26% of those up for grabs, while Bernie would have to actually win 51% to come out ahead in delegates. You call that democracy? And, true, Bernie is running behind that pace. But that was by plan—with all the Democratic establishment calling the race on day one, only the stubborn would refuse to vote for the putatively inevitable “winner”. After every primary, win or lose, Bernie was declared the underdog with no chance of catching up.

I noted with some amusement that Brad DeLong, a Clinton supporter who worked for her husband’s administration, has dissed Trump by running some numbers: “Donald Trump collects only 40% or so of the vote from the 15% or so of the adult population that votes in Republican Party primaries, and polls tell us he is massively unpopular with the bulk of American adults.”

OK, true. As of March 25, The Donald had received just 5.7% of the vote among eligible voters in the primaries that had been run up to that point. What DeLong failed to note is that Hillary had received 6.6%.

Talk about an unpopularity contest! Add the presumptive nominees together and you get just over a tenth of eligible voters choosing the next president.

The Donald was running against some dozens of candidates (to tell the truth, I could not tell who was not running in the Republican primaries—I think there might have been more candidates than voters), while Hillary was running against just one (well, if there were others, they dropped out quickly and no one remembers them).

Full Disclosure: the one she ran against was the 74 year-old democratic socialist calling for revolution, who got 4.7% of the eligible voters in those primaries, which took place mostly in conservative states that a few years ago would have been more likely to jail a socialist than vote for one. Until this year, the idea that almost 5% of southern eligible would go for the “Brooklyn Jewish Pinko Socialist” would have been earth-shatteringly newsworthy.

And with the Democratic primary season as rigged as it could possibly be to stop someone like Bernie, she’s pulling a percent more of the eligible votes than a reality TV star and less than 2% more than a self-professed socialist. In the conservative states. In states where independents are denied the right to vote. All front-loaded in the primary season to give a southern conservative former Goldwater Republican an insurmountable lead.

With 26 primaries already completed by March 25, Hillary had garnered votes from just 10.9% of the registered voters—in the primaries that lean right—versus Trump’s 9.4%.

A mandate for Hillary this ain’t.

(By contrast, “none of the above” is winning in a landslide. 34% of those who registered did not vote, and 39% of the eligible chose not to register. That is no vote of confidence for our two party system that tries to restrict our choices to party-sanctioned unpalatable candidates. While The Donald has brought in voters, Hillary has repelled them. If it were not for Bernie, voting by the Dems would be way down.)

I was also amused by DeLong’s “take-down” of those who “pander to populists”—by promising that which he claims cannot be delivered. And he argues the populists point their fingers at imagined damage done to them by the mainstream Democrats: deregulating Wall Street and shipping jobs abroad through NAFTA and by ignoring Chinese currency manipulation.

Now, the first of these happened, and it has played a huge role in producing the boom-bust cycle followed by stagnation that we now find ourselves in. It was a Clinton deal. Bill and Bob and Larry. All of them presumed advisors to a presumptive Hillary administration.

And while I side with DeLong in criticizing the second two claims, I don’t know many Bernie supporters who make them. NAFTA had little to do with loss of America’s jobs (but a lot to do with destruction of Mexican agriculture—that pushed migration to the US), and the accusations against China amount to little more than “red-baiting”.

Still I found it curious that he neglected to highlight the Clinton role in what he identified as true problems: “financialization and making profits by convincing investors to bear risks they should not; on health-care administration and making profits by passing off to others the hot potato of actually paying for care and treatment for the sick; on making profits by getting paid for locking up two percent of our young men for terms so excessive as to be cruel albeit not, alas, unusual”—all of which have Hillary’s hands all over them, especially the incarceration part but one should not forget that she supports financialization of healthcare through mandating private insurance over actually providing healthcare through universal coverage.

So here’s the question: can a progressive let a friend vote for a Neocon? This has become all the more relevant as it looks more likely that come November many will choose between Hillary or The Donald.

On social issues, I must admit that Hillary looks better. But who wouldn’t? The Donald, for reasons only known to himself, has decided to alienate some 85% of the population on social issues. I don’t get it. So his maximum vote take will be 15% of eligible. Hillary might be able to beat that.

On economics and dealings with the rest of the world, it is a toss-up. The Donald will Wall us in for protection (it is somewhat ironic that a China-basher would choose a Great Wall?), while Hillary will bomb and drone her “enemies” for regime change. I would prefer the Donald if he’d stop talking about deportation and religious litmus tests for immigrants. But he won’t. He prefers to be repulsive.

On economics, Hillary will continue to promote Wall Street’s depravities (after all, her husband delivered Wall Street to the Democrats, or, more accurately, the Democrats to Wall Street), while The Donald will make America Grand Again. Apparently by building more casinos and hotels for people with money to blow. Neither plan is appealing—but legal and supervised gambling in casinos is better than illegal and unsupervised gambling by Hillary’s Wall Street.

Who do you choose? How about neither.

As is well-known, Hillary was a Goldwater Republican. Not just a supporter, but an activist. She attributes that to youthful exuberance. As she matured, she became a Kissinger-Albright Neocon. In other words, she moved from isolationism to Neocon regime change.

And, with no small help from her husband’s presidency, the Democratic party moved so far right that a Goldwater Republican can fit nicely within its folds.

A progressive should not let a friend vote Neocon.

I know, I know. If you do not vote for the Neocon, you get the Donald. Well, maybe. That’s November. There’s still a lot of water to run under that bridge before we reach November.

But in any case, I don’t buy the argument. I don’t vote for the lesser of two evils. I don’t vote for evil, period. Yes, my candidates almost always lose. I’ve voted for exactly one winner in my life. I don’t regret any of my votes, even though that one winning candidate turned out to be a huge disappointment. All the winning candidates that I did not vote for were even worse disappointments (and my expectations were understandably low). I would not have felt any better had I voted for winners Obama 2012, Clinton (twice), Carter, or LBJ, nor if I had voted for losers Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, or Humphrey.

Yes, I voted for McGovern. I’m precisely the type of voter that the party establishment has tried to disenfranchise—to ensure that the party never again makes the “mistake” of running someone who leans toward peace and progressive policy. I’m not a “loyalist”. I cannot be trusted to vote the party line.

I do not accept the argument that progressives have no choice but to vote for Neocons. If you settle for the lesser of evils, all you will get is evils.

I do have a choice. And so do you. As the great philosopher said, “It ain’t over, until it’s over”.

Call me crazy buy I think Bernie and The Donald have tapped into something. It feels like an unrest, a disquiet even in the face of 8 years of economic improvement. What causes that? I think people, not all but a significant number, have not enjoyed the improving economy and instead are trapped in never ending cycles of debt and disruption with little relief in sight. And those people have noticed the conspicuous consumption of the elite and upper incomes. The stock market looks good for those on top, but the lower classes are getting what they deserve some think. I could list the ills that plague us now, but we all know them. Bernie can fix them. Trump hasn’t a clue and Hillary is simply awaiting her coronation. Then she will be free to pursue of dream of world conquest and make nice again with Wall Street. And, of course, it will not be her fault there is no improvement in the scales of equality. The congress will not allow her to do all the good work she would otherwise do. Those nasty republicans.

We, in the US are in deep trouble for a while regardless of who is elected: a big hole was dug and there is much climbing to get back to even the ground, much less above it. But given Clinton or Trump I’ll take Trump, who while is also a sociopath, he keeps it more local to his own ego, and seems more inclined to be some sort of political realist than an ideological and war mongering neocon, like Clinton who already has much responsibility for war and genocide.

Trump may well ruin the US but is, I think, or hope, less likely to destroy the world, or bring on nuclear holocaust. If the US collapses but there is a world left, there is some hope more humanity at least, and perhaps for what will be left of the US. Trump does not have the machinery that Clinton does, lies less effectively, and is abrasive enough it would be harder for him to wreak havoc, as people rise up to object. A vote for Clinton is a vote for world war and a solid wall of evil, while with Trump there is a smidgeon more political space, and a few glimmers of light which might pan out — and that seems to be the best we can get for right now. At the least, Trump is more likely to recognize a bad ‘deal’ and avoid it, while Clinton continually fails to learn from the disasters in her wake and keeps doubling down on the same idiocy.

There may be some hope that Trump could be educated in economics, and perhaps much of what he says is determined not by what he actually thinks but by the role he thinks he need to play to sell to the masses — what a salesman does. Considering the reaction of the media, with the free publicity, and populism in the masses, he may right in that he has to play that sort of clown to break through the Wall — or maybe he really is a clown. I don’t know.
But at this point, better the devil we don’t know than the one we do, and I expect it will take some time yet for the people to wake up and organize enough for any revolution, and even buying a little time in the chaos of a Trump presidency is worth the price.

Yes, climate disruption is on schedule for destroying civilization. Yet various animals and plants, and probably some humans would survive — and that’s better than nuclear war.

Would Clinton do more or be effective in slowing climate change? As part of Wall Street, I have grave doubts about that. But Trump, for all his denial, would not seem to me to be able to effectively block the the world wide movement towards working on it (or the Paris agreement, such as it is).

Sanders would be far better than either on this (although Sanders seems to give much support to imperialism). Question is, what can any of them do or block if in office, given the power of the other forces: MIC, banksters, Russia and China and the rest of the world, US ideologs, etc.? Overall Sanders would be positive (but unlikely to get in), but I see Trump more as a shoe in the machine, and Clinton, already part of the establishment and neocon ‘evil empire’, as greasing and speeding the way towards destruction — being more effective towards going over the cliff. It’s all uncertain, of course, but without Sanders, or the rather unlikely Green or Socialist, It seems better to increase the level of chaos (and perhaps set the Republicans, and maybe even the Democrats, against each other in internecine battle) than reinforce the lunatics in control now.

This would not be ‘creative destruction’ or ‘controlled chaos’ which the empire has been employing, but like throwing a handful of bullets into the campfire when the bad guys have the drop on you. I don’t know of a better tactic at this point, including for climate disruption, where the rest of the world needs some freedom of action, out from under the heel of the empire.

So Hillary who is in favor of slowing climate change would not help it but Trump who is opposed to it couldn’t stop the world movement. I disagree. Without us out there, the movement will stall. You assume there will be a nuclear war with Hillary which I think is a hill too far to assume. You assume there’d be no war with Trump but he has proved to be very emotional and easily insulted. I can’t assume he wouldn’t do something crazy. For judgement, I’d trust Hillary more but we’d have to keep a lot of pressure on her. She’s much more tested than Trump. Trump is used to having bankruptcy courts to bail out his bad decisions but that option won’t exist on the world political stage.
I don’t accept nuclear war as a better option than global warming.

Definitely a loose cannon — or careless in speech. But I think as prez he would likely climb down from such flare-ups, with the military wising him up (since the Russian plane would likely win such an encounter). I think Bernie is mediocre, and the other two disasters (I won’t vote for either one) but Clinton and her cold ideology scares me more than Trump.

It was very disappointing to see how many people did not vote for Sanders. There isn’t much time for the people to get their act together, so how is that to be done? Is there a way to be ready for the expected next financial crash to get some positive result from it? ‘Where’s the plan?’

You have me there. With either Hillary or Trump I expect another financial crash. Trump is a member of the 1% and he won’t do anything to hurt his position. He is out for Trump. I believe he started this whole thing to improve his tv ratings and it just unexpectedly took off.

Trump is a businessman and is transactional in his thinking. He wants the best deal he can get right now but he isn’t used to doing long term planning.

I just finished Hacker and Pierson’s new book Ameican Amnesia. His main point is that we have to get people into the government who believe in governing, who believe that government isn’t the problem but is a necessary part of our economy. I agree. That’s a reason I liked Bernie because he has Stephanie Kelton and Bill Black on his staff. I think as president he’d be pushing the envelope constantly to get government more involved again.

Lesser evil voting is a consequence of our political and voting system. Voting for a third party doesn’t change that, doesn’t give us a parliamentary system where minority parties can be represented in a coalition, doesn’t give us an approval or ranked voting system. Calling candidates
Lucifer might be fun, but if there are meaningful differences between candidates it is worthwhile to know what they are and vote accordingly.

I agree with much of what you say. I agree with most of Bernie’s economic ideas. I supported him strongly. However, global warming is the biggest problem the world faces. And Bernie is a fanatic loon about nuclear power — which we must use to replace fossil fuel because solar and wind can’t do it. (FYI – Jacobson, Dr. 100% solar and wind, is funded by big oil. So was David Brower way back in the 70’s.) Bernie is also anti-GMO. Together that tells me he is as anti-science as the tea-party right.

So, I will vote for Hillary. Economically, we will muddle through. She is unlikely to be worse than Obama was. I am very worried about Hillary being an unreconstructed war hawk. But Donald is as close to a psychotic narcissist in the white house as I ever want to see. Not voting for Hillary is a vote for Donald.

For me it’s a process of elimination. Every republican in the race is a wacko. Bernie is unacceptable because he’s an anti-science fanatic who won’t listen to reason. Of that I am absolutely sure now. I’m not enthusiastic about Hillary, but she’s a pragmatist and she’s not insane.

I think Randy is missing the most crucial ingredient of the Trump candidacy — race-baiting fascism. Think of the hatred spewing from the Trump crowds — hatred that has already turned into violence directed at protesters. Imagine what a Trump presidency will be like. Obama has quietly become the “deporter in chief.” Trump will do it with a megaphone.
It is too cute for those of us who are comfortable in our upper middle class incomes and secure retirements (lots of baby boomer lefties fit into that category) to say that Trump will do less harm than Hilary (most of the anti-Hilary arguments suggest she’ll get us into more wars — George W. Bush sounded like a cautious foreign policy person on the campaign trail and look what he turned into!). Four years of Trump with a Republican House and Senate and we’ve lost the Supreme Court for a generation and the round-up of
“illegals” will begin.

The domestic Muslim population has been decidedly anti-Jihadist — no European problem yet. Trumps xenophobia and his actions to “bomb the shit out of ISIS” will change that — San Bernadino will become the new normal as well the desire on the part of the Trumpites for ethnic cleansing.

The Communist Party of Germany had a slogan, “After Hitler, Us…..” Thus they refused to make common cause with the Social Democrats who they called “social fascists” — We all know how that turned out …

Pro Bernie people have to suck it up and not just vote for but SUPPORT Hilary — as someone above said, “voting is not so you can feel good….”

Just remember, a no vote in this election (unless it’s a safely Blue State where you can indulge your purity) is a vote for fascism (=Trump)

Trump taps into the racism and fear, but he didn’t create it, either in the current ‘conservative’ forces or the popular support for it. There is already substantial push-back against it, however, and that struggle will rage on, as in Europe, and it ultimately depends on the people, the economy, and level of fear from the xenophobia used as a tool by the plutocracy.

Our advantage with Trump is that he lacks effectiveness as a leader for everyone and the schisms he is relying on now will work against him later. Clinton, OTOH, is a bona fide psychopath (in my judgement) but very competent at it (as is Bill). Bill, with Hillary’s support, accomplished outrageous things with little objection from the ‘liberals’ — destructive ‘reform’ of welfare, and of financial regulation (end of Glass-Steagall), loss of media diversity, and a very mixed foreign policy (sanctions against Iraq and Iran, Yugoslavia, end of Agreed Framework in NK).

Trump, as a loose cannon, will be a ‘friction to the machine’; it’s stopping or disrupting the machine which is most important now. (He will likely be grist for Putin’s mill, for instance, with his meager understanding of geopolitics. ) Better to have a vainglorious Gen. Custer than an effective Gen. Grant for an enemy, since there is no easy way out of this in any case, and it will depend on the people to fix things if they can.

Mike: How’s that working for you? See my list of Democratic candidates that I did not vote for. Which of those were you happy with? On the scale of “badness” where would you put Bush Senior vs Clinton (Bill, the male)? Honestly? Who “ended welfare as we know it”? Who incarcerated millions of black men? Who let Wall Street run amuck? (Hint: George the elder actually did a pretty good job of resolving the S&L crisis and the early 1990s crisis of all the big banks.)

You take the lesser of evils and you get evils. All down the road.

See Lisa’s statement below. I embrace that. You cannot work for a better future by embracing evil.
And I did not recommend “no vote”. There is still a very good candidate in this race. His name is Bernie.

And if after the floor fight, Bernie is out as the Democratic Party candidate, there are still two very good candidates. Bernie as write-in and Jill as Green.

I will reluctantaly vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. The most important issue of our time is global warming. None of the republicans believe it is happening and will not advance ideas to combat it. Trump is talking about slashing the EPA budget.
Hillary has been dragged over to openly endorsing moves to combat climate change but she is there now.

Trump is also anti-union, anti-minimum wage and has already states that the workers’ main problem is that they make too much money. After they accept cuts, the jobs will come back. That’s not a program I can endorse.

We have no idea what Trump would do internationally. He is rash and easily insulted and could easily take us into dangerous situations.

Be warned Americans:
If you want to see a climate denial government look no further than Australia for the last 3 years as a warning to how things will go down:
Having destroyed the CSIRO (government funded science institution for 100 years) put its own stooges in charge the whole facade has evolved to the point where the governments most progressive stance now answers its own question “is there climate change: yes”

From this they rationalise that they should stop any further research which attempts to quantify or model what the changes actually are with more granularity because apparently the issue is just “settled” . (If we applied the same process to say being diagnosed with cancer the patient would just be bluntly be told they have a cancer and that is ‘settled’ never mind the specifics).

I have been supporting weak Democrats presidential candidates in past elections for fear of Republican becoming president but this year I will write in Bernie’s name if Hillary is Democrat’s candidate. It is time for complete revolution in Democratic party.This current party doesn’t even look like Democratic party but more like some liberal Republican. I finally came late to realization of how much Obama promises to do for American workers but in reality his great speech contain no plans for fulfilling them. Bernie offers America something radical and some of his ideas may not work but Hillary offers what this country already has. And last 8 yrs shows how much that is recipe for stagnation in income for most Americans while 1% continue to become wealthier.

JMarco: agree completely. If we cannot have revolution within the party then the best thing to do is to dump the party.
Hillary’s army of Trolls; her flagrant disregard of the law regarding running official government emails through her family foundation’s server (an indictment is coming….Justice moves slowly but it will come); her millions from Wall Street for speeches and for (maybe another indictment) selling out the State Department to contractors; and her war mongering make her an unfit candidate.

Those discussing Bernie Sander’s political movement, a movement funded/invested in by his followers, do not truly grasp the long term impact that Bernie’s followers will have on the Clinton campaign. We believe the DNC is rigged. We do not want an elitist, who is funded by Wall Street, large corporations, the wealthy 1% to be President of the United States. Hillary Clinton has a string of scandals following her everywhere and is not trusted. She will not get the vote of a significant percentage of Bernie supporters. They did not fund a campaign against all that Hilary represents to change and vote for her because they fear Trump. In fact, many believe Hilary is more dangerous. She presents herself as a Democrat when she owes her allegiance to Wall Street, Banks-Too-Big-To-Fail, wealthy corporations and other wealthy individuals. The Bernie Sander’s movement is one that faces off against a rigged and corrupt political system. Bernie Sanders will divide the Democratic Party. We, his donors/campaign contributors/99% and less are petitioning him to run as an Independent Candidate for the Presidency. We believe he will win in an open election. He will represent his donors as Hilary will ultimately represent hers. Bernie or Bust!

Randy, I give you Al Gore vs. G.W Bush. (And I plead guilty to believing it would have made no difference — actively supporting a vote for Nadar — I also assert that I was dead wrong.).
Gore would not have started the second Iraq War, would not have appointed Alito and Roberts (which then gave us Citizens United and eviscerated the Voting Rights Act) —

Gore would not have denied the science of global warming.

I confess to many mistakes in voting — I voted for LBJ in 1964 and Bill Clinton in 1992 — and of course regretted both votes. I do not regret voting for Obama both times despite his disappointments —

The argument between us is whether or not Trump will whip up a new American fascism and create a coalition with the Republicans in Congress to roll the clock back on the meager gains that the popular movements made in the 1960s and 70s — I truly believe that is on the horizon …

A Democrat in the White House will give us a new Supreme Court which will re-establish the Voting Rights Act and reverse Citizens United —

Mike: And a Hillary in the White House will keep the Dems in Wall Street’s pocket. And after her term we’ll be handed another Neocon as the presumptive nominee. You can bet Chelsea is in our future.

Hillary moved her emails to her home computer (according to her supporter, Bob Kerry, she was thinking she could evade the FOIA); she erased tens of thousands of emails that likely will show how she used the State Department to enrich the family (and who knows what else they will show). She’s funded an army of Trolls. Her surrogates are warning of post-election retribution of Bernie supporters. (She’s not alone. Obama has become famous for secrecy and going after whistle-blowers.)

As a Marx brother said, you cannot tell the players without a scorecard. You take the lesser of evils and you get evil. In both parties.

I don’t want to second-guess anyone’s past votes. I agree it is a very tough decision–do you go for the lesser evil if the worser evil is truly eviler, and if casting your vote for a third party that is going to get a couple of percent seems like throwing it away.

This time is different. Neither Hillary nor the Donald is likely to go to the convention with enough delegates. There will be floor fights. For the first time since the 1960s a significant portion of the population has had enough–on the right and the left. On the left, there is disgust with the sharp rightward tacking of the Democratic party leadership, which is completely tone-deaf. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the leadership’s tactics. Next time the rigging of the primaries will be even worse. There will be even less reason to vote. Hillary might “win” with less than 15% of the eligibles. Maybe next time the “winner” will get only 10%. Then 5. When would you go for the third party candidate? How can we get an alternative if you won’t vote for an alternative?

and wonder how the wars will affect the economy, and civil rights, etc. to counter Clinton’s current talk about them. I attribute much of our current economic woes and damage to the real economy, and environmental damage, to the costs and fallout of the war machine’s actions over the years (the ‘war economy’). I don’t think we can separate out these various elements from the systems thinking perspective.

Lisa said: She presents herself as a Democrat when she owes her allegiance to Wall Street, Banks-Too-Big-To-Fail, wealthy corporations and other wealthy individuals.

That sadly is what the Democratic Party has become. There’s nothing inconsistent about those 2 positions. Everyone should read Thomas Frank’s new book Listen Liberal; he makes a strong case the Dems have lost all touch with their (former?) working class supporters.